Who would you rather?

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 652
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Equal Opportunity Cartooning

Postby Juggler » 2008 Jul 23 10:01

Image

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 437
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Mark Warner

Postby Amy Probenski » 2008 Jul 28 10:21

Mark Warner for Senate.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Uji » 2008 Aug 02 11:07

:violent5: Don't you folks get tired of spinning your wheels like this? Everybody is an unprincipaled idiot and all politicians who don't fall on their sword to promote a good end are shameless. To a forum newbie, this all sounds so pathetic. Get a grip, folks!

We all sit around and watch BS cable TV 24/7, listen to BS music on our IPODS 24/7, and can't hold a focused thought in our withered cortex for more than a millisecond without wanting to "do something for myself" or relax from the rigors of NPR for some "Me" time. If Obama isn't up to your high standards of progressive heroism, then maybe you ought to look in the mirror. What exactly have you done in last ten years to advance the cause besides complain about things? The guy gets elected to the Senate and the first thing he does is oppose the invasion of Iraq -- virtually the only one. "Well, I opposed the war," you say. Okay, but did you put your career on the line for that opinion? His career would have been over, dead-in-the-water-dead if the war had indeed been over in a month. That's not enough courage for you?

Then, look what Jefferson was willing to do to get elected, and Lincoln, too. Don't know what they did, said? Well read a book for pete's sake and stop whining about magazine covers. Jeez... Just because someone has some ideals with which you agree doesn't mean that they aren't ambitious for the power required to express those ideals. If they fail to express it when they get that power, well . . .

But it's the society we live in, folks. Rockbridge library would be out of business if they hadn't started carrying DVDs and "books" on tape. (Too busy wasting gas keeping our kids mindlessly busy padding their resume to actually read.) We're dumb, lazy, and -- for some completely inexplicable reason -- arrogant to boot!

Forchris'sake, if you can't work up any enthusiasm for a guy like Obama and the potential (even if that's all you can see) that he has for this country and the globe, then why bother to complain about it? Just dig yourselves a hole, wire it for cable, and settle down with some Jack Daniels and wait for the second coming.

Jeez... :banghead:

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 437
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Amy Probenski » 2008 Aug 02 13:55

Uji, as you sound to be, I'm a supporter of the best among possibles - not letting the unattainable ideal become a barrier to achievable improvement. This time around, a choice for Obama screams as the correct one to make.

Uji wrote:... stop whining about magazine covers.
I didn't read those postings as whining, but rather as humorous comment on humorous cartoons. I rather enjoyed seeing both candidates pilloried similarly.

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 652
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Juggler » 2008 Aug 02 20:32

beckonwood wrote:I call or write those elected to office in Washington quite often. I did recently asking they vote on this energy bill.

Sounds like "W", Limbaugh and O'Reilly can depend on you to serve as their acolyte.

Image

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Uji » 2008 Aug 03 10:46

Thanks for the welcome, Beckonwood. I'm embarrassed to enter on such a bitter note. But I just read posts from all these interesting, smart, people, and I just wish they were out knocking on doors or running for office. And they probably are.:oops:

But as to your post:

Indifference and contempt for politicians can be very comforting, it save us from actually having to make decisions. They're all self-serving scumbags, so why take politicians (or even politics) seriously?

But, you know, there are children out there in the real world who'll have to clean up this mess as best they can when they inherit it. I feel compelled to take what goes on up there seriously. Seriously enough to question the slogans and think about the proposals offered.

As an "independently minded woman," do you really think drilling for oil off Florida or in ANWR will have any significant effect on our energy independence? We use 20 million barrels/day -- about 7.3 billion barrels/year (if i got all my zeroes added up right). USGS estimates there is about 7 billion barrels in ANWR and that's where the big, untapped reserve is. If we sucked ANWR dry, we'd supply about a year's worth of US consumption. That'll make us independent? Of whom? There is not enough oil in this country or off-shore to guarantee our independence from anything--if you actually look at the numbers.

And do you think that will have any effect on gas prices--like Gilmore and Bush claim? Not even McCain buys that. Neither does John Warner (R). Neither of them buy the drill-everywhere bill, either. So why fault the Dems for scuttling your bill?

Put a little effort into this and think about it. Dems may all be sleaze-balls and the "drill here, drill now" crowd all saints, but that doesn't excuse you from actually having to think about the positions they put forth. Even a sleaze-ball can have a sound position on energy; and no matter how virtuous and individual is, this guarantees nothing about the soundness of their views on anything.

Its not Dems v. GOPs -- It's us -- together -- trying to figure out how-the=hell to leave this a better place than when we got it. And those sleaze-balls up in DC -- we elected them!

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Aug 03 14:05

Another letter writer and voter here. I try very hard to take the party out of politics and look at the individual.......there goes any kind of party loyalty on this end and voting for the Dems or GOP just for the sake of "party unity". IMHO, that is a large part of the problem in this country today. We have allowed elections to become games of power and control while having our attention diverted by things that are not real issues. Thank you Rupert Murdoch, et al.

As far as solutions to the energy crisis goes, I think we have become AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENT. I would gladly give up my car if I had access to reliable public transportation. I would love to see the re-emergence of passenger rail service. Sadly, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime. I think we have become too accustomed to our sense of entitlement with our status symbol cars, trucks, and SUV's. Even a bicycle or walking would be preferable for transportation to work if the path I travel were well-lit with a bike lane (I work at night). How much nicer (and stress-free) a trip to Lexington would be by train rather than on the Death Corridor known as I-81. Perhaps it is that sense of entitlement that keeps folks looking at more places to drill rather than looking at the alternatives that would greatly reduce dependence on automobiles and in turn, vast quantities of oil. And seriously, do we really want to start burning food in order to maintain our fat-cat American lifestyle? Think of the food crisis already taking place in other parts of the world.....do you want to be next on that list? Or does it not matter how many people go to bed hungry o starve as long as that hunk of metal parked in your driveway or garage is well fed?


:hmm:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1543
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Coondog » 2008 Aug 03 15:59

Fangz!

Why are you bashing my 8 cylinder, 5.7 litre Hemi in the middle of a political discussion?

Coondog :naughty:

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Aug 06 08:55

This is a Letter to the Editor. I just knew there was a good reason for not liking or trusting Obama.

on August 5, 2008, the Roanoke Times wrote:We'd never fall for a charismatic leader, right?

We'd never fall for a charismatic leader, right?

Once upon a time, there was a charismatic and eloquent young leader who decided his nation needed a change and he was the one to implement it.

The people were receptive and ready for a change. He spoke passionately when denouncing the existing system, and the press loved him.

Nobody questioned what he believed in or who his friends were. He would help the poor and bring free medical care and education to all. He would bring justice and equality. He said, "I am for hope and change, and will bring you both."

Nobody bothered to ask about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, all guns had been confiscated. When everyone was finally equal, they were equally poor, hungry and miserable. Their free education was worthless.

When the change was fully implemented, the country had been reduced to Third World status. More than a million people fled in small boats and rafts. The charismatic young leader was Fidel Castro; the nation, Cuba.

The citizens of the United States would never fall for a charismatic, eloquent young leader who promises hope and change without asking, "What change, and how much will it cost us?" Would we?

MARLIN THOMPSON
BOONES MILL


:wink:

And Coondog...............I most certainly should bash your Hemi in the middle of a political discussion. Transportation, energy, and the oil crisis are all major issues in the political arena this year. Although, the media would rather divert our attention elsewhere................
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 437
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Amy Probenski » 2008 Aug 06 10:06

Help me out here, because I cannot see how this damns any current candidate.

Politicians through the ages have sometimes been dubbed "charismatic". Some turned out to be good, some turned out to be bad.

For example, "good" charismatic politicians might include George Washington, Churchill, John Kennedy, T. Roosevelt, F.Roosevelt, and the"bad" might include Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Mao.

Charisma per se seems not to be a negative quality. It's the other things that count.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Uji » 2008 Aug 06 12:14

The "charismatic leader" is off the mark because the example doesn't fit the present case. Castro said he was going to do one thing (and received US and popular support); then he did another and lost at least one of those supporters. Maybe both, I don't know.

O has many detailed policy documents published all over the web. Anyone who claims they don't know what "change" he wants is either lazy, illiterate, or just not paying attention. Or, just as likely, finds that issue a convenient code for some other problem they have with O.

His policies are out there; folks can disagree with them or not. But if they are going to say that they don't believe them, that he actually has some crypto-agenda (like Castro, for example), is silly. There is no evidence out there that O is dishonest, that he lies, or that he is not to be trusted with a public trust. They fact that someone may distrust him is not evidence that he is untrustworthy.

Strong claim requires equally strong evidence. We can have any "opinion" that we want, but if we are gonna call someone a lier and distrust what they claim to believe, most of us would require some concrete justification for that view. That's not just common courtesy, that's a requirement of civil society. Without that, civic discourse is impossible.

He's not been a national public figure for long, so it's not unreasonable that people should ask questions. But if they don't actually try to find the answers to those questions, it silly for them to claim that they've been "unanswered."

I'm very enthusiastic about Obama. But I also consider him very difficult to pigeon-hole, and recognize that he is very careful with his pronouncements -- most of the time. You can read that as cagey. I choose to read it as careful. "Cagey" suggests ulterior motives that I don't see any evidence for. He is clearly a very focused, ambitious guy. Is that unlike anyone else who ever ran for President? I don't think so. All this is code for something else. It may be race, but I think that it's probably more complicated than that.

In any event. I don't see any reason to take seriously any point of view that ignores the facts and that offers generalizations (or bad comparisons like Obama=Castro) in place of evidence.

We all got opinions. That's no accomplishment. An argument requires effort. It's much easier to listen to talk radio and then say, "Me too."

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Aug 06 14:20

Hmmmmm.......................how nice to be so smugly "superior" in your own thinking and opinions. And so much so that you love to dismiss opinions, perceptions, thoughts, and concepts that disagree with your own as belonging to lazy and illiterate folks. So what if folks listen to talk radio and agree with what they hear? So what if folks read an article or a letter to the editor and agree with some or all of what they read? Does that make them so much different than you?
I think not. The only difference is that you seem to think that your smugly "superior" ways and thoughts are THE ULTIMATE TRUTH on any and every issue.

As far as the letter I posted goes, I found it to be very worthy of food for thought. At this stage of the game (and that is ALL politics is these days), I will read things that make me stop and think before making any kind of decision on who gets my vote. I don't believe Obama is the "Golden Boy" that his spin doctors present him to be. All we have to do is look not only to the past, but to the current levels of deceit and corruption in the political arena.

You can get down off your high horse now.......................ya might drown the next time it rains.


:craz:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1543
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Coondog » 2008 Aug 06 14:43

Speaking of Charisma.........

Paris Hilton's energy policy sounds more plausible than either major party candidate's.
Plus, she has the celebrity status of Obama and the social history of McCain.

Coondog :encore:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 437
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Amy Probenski » 2008 Aug 06 15:13

fangz1956 wrote:...how nice to be so smugly "superior" in your own thinking and opinions. And so much so that you love to dismiss opinions, perceptions, thoughts, and concepts that disagree with your own as belonging to lazy and illiterate folks
Now let's be nice.

Uji gave an analytical view of an important issue, and you've gone and personalized it by ascribing to him feelings he probably does not hold. Let's speak for ourselves, not for others.

Holding an opinion that differs from that of another person does not constitute dismissal. Indeed, because he gave a well-framed response, it is just the opposite of dismissal (which would be silence).

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Uji » 2008 Aug 06 18:52

I'm sorry you found my post smug. I'm also sorry you didn't offer an argument to support your opinions.

Nothing wrong with hearing an opinion and agreeing with it. But it would be helpful to those who do not agree or, perhaps, have not heard the argument you found so convincing if you made some effort to present rationale for your opinion.

I found the "Castro" article unpersuasive because based on a bad analogy, and I offered reasons why. You found it compelling, but offered no reasons why you -- or what you find inadequate about mine. Unless we are changing the definitions of "smug," I don't think I'm the one who qualifies.

In any event, we can fight, or we can argue. The object of fighting is to win; the object of argument is to come to some sort of consensus. If you aren't interested in argument, fine. I am. That's how you actually get beyond the name calling.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat. I thought you wanted to talk about this stuff.

User avatar
nudgewink
Posts: 158
Joined: 2008 Mar 19 13:07

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby nudgewink » 2008 Aug 07 00:33

coondog wrote:Paris Hilton's energy policy sounds more plausible than either major party candidate's.

Wow. I have a new respect for our dear Paris.

Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul can go stuff it.

:love10: I have found my ideal third-party candidate! :love10:

10thFO

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby 10thFO » 2008 Aug 07 06:01

Uji, actually, the two replies I have read from you in this thread have been rather condescending. It's great that you find Obama to be you be all answer to everything, but for us more lazy folks who are just lying in our foxholes, drinking whiskey and watching cable tv, how about you point us to all this relevant information about Mr. Obama's plans? It would improve your argument if you actually linked something instead of saying it's out there if you look hard enough. Would I spend all day, all week or just a month looking for it? People have heard the speeches, the song, how about we hear some of these plans from Obama's mouth. He won't say anything because he is afraid of being pigeonholed. He's not being careful, he is being cagey by your definition. God forbid we knew his plan a month ago about drilling off the coast, because now it seems that it is okay with him.

Why won't he do a town hall forum? Is he afraid that he won't be able to connect to the people in a one on one fashion? Or maybe he is just to important to talk to less than say, 40K people in a prepared speech. Obama suffers two problems in this race for the Presidency. One is his race, which you seem to be implying that everyone on this board who doesn't support Obama is actually using other "reasons" for saying they won't vote for him because he is black. The second is he is an elitist. Not too different that Kerry. You noticed how that worked out against a good ole redneck from Tejas didn't you.

You are being condescending and have offered nothing to back up your support of Obama. So please don't be the rube that comes on this forum to chastise others for being lazy, when your candidate du juor isn't taking the time "to explain his positions". He has offered nothing. He's a paper tiger, and his opinions and positions change with the polls. Welcome to the board, but there is book smart and people smart, and sometimes there is stupid to boot.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Aug 07 07:20

We never claimed that the propaganda model explains everything or that it shows media omnipotence and complete effectiveness in manufacturing consent. It is a model of media behavior and performance, not media effects. We explicitly pointed to alternative media, grass roots information sources, and public skepticism about media veracity as important limits on media effectiveness in propaganda service, and we urged the support and more effective use of these alternatives. We have frequently pointed to the general public's disagreement with the media and elite over the morality of the Vietnam War and the desirability of the assault on Nicaragua in the 1980s (among other matters). The power of the U.S. propaganda system lies in its ability to mobilize an elite consensus, to give the appearance of democratic consent, and to create enough confusion, misunderstanding, and apathy in the general population to allow elite programs to go forward. We also emphasized the fact that there are often differences within the elite that open up space for some debate and even occasional (but very rare) attacks on the intent, as well as the tactical means of achieving elite ends.

Although the propaganda model was generally well received on the Left, some complained of an allegedly pessimistic thrust and implication of hopeless odds to be overcome. A closely related objection was its inapplicability to local conflicts where the possibility of effective resistance was greater. But the propaganda model does not suggest that local and even larger victories are impossible, especially where the elites are divided or have limited interest in an issue. For example, coverage of issues like gun control, school prayer, and abortion rights may well receive more varied treatment than, say, global trade, taxation, and economic policy. Moreover, well organized campaigns by labor, human rights, or environmental organizations fighting against abusive local businesses can sometimes elicit positive media coverage. In fact, we would like to think that the propaganda model even suggests where and how activists can best deploy their efforts to influence mainstream media coverage of issues.

The model does suggest that the mainstream media, as elite institutions, commonly frame news and allow debate only within the parameters of elite interests; and that where the elite is really concerned and unified, and/or where ordinary citizens are not aware of their own stake in an issue or are immobilized by effective propaganda, the media will serve elite interests uncompromisingly.

Notes
1. Noam Chomsky analyzes some of these criticisms in his Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (Boston: South End Press, 1989), appendix 1.

2. For compelling documentation on this extraordinary subservience, ibid., pp. 197-261.

3. It should be noted that the case studies in Manufacturing Consent are only a small proportion of those that Chomsky and I have done which support the analysis of the propaganda model. Special mention should be made of those covering the Middle East, Central America, and terrorism. See esp. Chomsky's Necessary Illusions, The Fateful Triangle (London: Pluto Press, 1983), and Pirates & Emperors (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1987), and my The Real Terror Network (Boston: South End, 1982), and (with Gerry O'Sullivan) The Terrorism Industry (New York: Pantheon, 1989).

4. In fact, the only attempt to offer an alternative model was by Nicholas Lemann in the New Republic. For an analysis of this effort, see Chomsky's Necessary Illusions, pp. 145-148.

5. For a discussion see Edward Herman, "Labor Aggression in Mexico," Lies of Our Times (December 1994): 6-7.

6. For discussions of the media treatment of NAFTA and the Mexican meltdown, see Thea Lee, "False Prophets: The Selling of NAFRA," Economic Policy Institute, 1995; Edward Herman, "Mexican Meltdown: NAFTA and the Propaganda System," Z Magazine (September 1995).

7. "Lost in the Margins: Labor and the Media,! EXTRA! (Summer 1990).

8. See Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy (London: Verso, 1991), pp. 114-121.

9. "Health Care Reform: Not Journalistically Viable," EXTRA! (July-August 1993); John Canham-Clyne, "When Both Sides' aren't enough: The Restricted Debate over Health Care Reform," EXTRA! (January-February 1994).

Read more here: http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm

Now then......................how sad that one cannot read the letter that was posted and SEE that the writer is trying to get people to think outside of the contrived media box. He is asking folks to think independently and question everything. I think that is rather sound advice and is a major reason I have not jumped on the Obama Express Train To Hell. The media (the mainstream parts of it) are doing a grand job of hoodwinking the nation as usual. Even if one finds the letter writer's analogy to be extreme, there is still the message behind the words regarding independent thought.

I do believe it was was Einstein who said something to the effect of "The most important thing is to never stop questioning". Oh my..................and that from a high school drop out!! Imagine that!! Since Einstein lacked higher formal education (book smarts) do you consider him to be one of your lazy, illiterate common folk?????

:hmm:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby Uji » 2008 Aug 07 10:07

I'm sorry that you consider my post condescending.

But I never once urged you or anyone to support Obama (except on another thread -- and that one preaching to the choir). I simply revealed my support for Obama just as a way of making clear my particular slant.

I am interested in how we talk about these things, that's all. If we want to get somewhere, together, we have to agree to be reasonable, fair, and to support opinion with evidence. My posts were not about a particular opinion, but about what constitutes an argument.

Certainly a shame that such a post is considered condescending.

In particular, all I did was suggest that you actually look for Obama's policy statements before saying that he's asking us to buy a pig in a poke. His statements are as detailed and as nummerous as any other candidate. If you don't like his policy statements, fine. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have any.

Since you asked: You could start here, or, you can just google "obama policy statements."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c ... 7ldWXzz95g

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c ... hQqpDESdIA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c ... yX_aQjRang

10thFO

Re: Who would you rather?

Postby 10thFO » 2008 Aug 07 16:22

Uji, that's alright, I will take a look at your postings that you linked. I only do drive by's on this board from time to time, and was out of town for the last 2.5 weeks with no computer access, and hardly any tv access. Man was that a refresher. But I do engage on another board that is pretty heated when it comes to Politics, especially around election time. Your posts just seemed well enough written that you knew what you were getting at, if I mistook you then I apologize. I don't mind debate.

I'll check out your links maybe this morning when i can't sleep for crap.


Return to “Archive of Retired Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest